Jump to content

Will MDK run on this?


Guest [C]rOw
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest [C]rOw

Case: Foxconn TLA-570A

Monitor: 17" Envision CRT Monitor

Motherboard: AOpen AK86-L/AK86-N ATX Motherboard

Processer: AMD Athlon™ 64 3000+ 2GHz Processer with HyperTransport Technology

Memory: Super Talent 512MB PC3200 184-Pin DDR DIMM

Hard Drive: Samsung 40GB IDE 7200RPM Hard Drive

Video/GFX Card: nVidia Geforce FX5200 TV/DVI

Video/GFX Memory: 128MB

Audio/Sound Card: Vinyl AC'97 Audio

Mouse: Logitech Marble Mouse

Keyboard: Microsoft Keyboard

CD-ROM/CD-RW: Sony 52x CD-ROM Drive

Floppy: 3 1/2 Inch 1.44MB Floppy Drive

Sound/Audio Speakers: Labtec Speakers

Screen Resoluction: 1200x900@60Hz

Colors: 32-bit color

Ethernet Card: Realtek RTL8169/8110 Family Gigabit Ethernet NIC

TV Card: Hauppauge WinTV2000

 

BTW I have a D-Link 2.4GHz | 54mbps router and a Toshia modem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[sarcasm mode] Computer case and floppy might cause a problem. A Samsung hd? Oh horrors! And *gasps a CD-RW drive?! eek[/sarcasm mode]

 

I don't advice to run the monitor on such a low frequency on such a high resolution. It's very bad for your eyes and face skin.

 

p.s. You'll have only 16 or 24bit colours on Linux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the resolution only indicates the maximum resolution possible.

 

from the hardware you have, i do not see any mayor problems with mandrake. you can test it nontheless with a mandrake-move cd first, if you want. but i think it will run perfectly on this kind of box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest [C]rOw

Ok, well I changed my resolution to 1024x768 @ 60Hz but the main parts I'm concerned about are the motherboard, video card, ethernet card, router, and modem.

Edited by [C]rOw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

60hz is ancient!

Even then you can usually turn the frequency higher on lower resolutions.

I know this thing and it really is harmful for human tissue (eye or skin) to have such a low frequency a few centimetres from you. Even on 1024x

 

Anyways I have a RealTek ethernet card myself, video card is fairly standart, the mobo's manufacturer sucks independent on the system used. :jester:

Try it (as suggested) with MDK Move

Edited by solarian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems a bit unbalanced to me...

Should run fine but AMD64 3000+ I'd prefer more memory....? (1GB)

 

Like solarian says 60Hz is very low... regardless of all else it will give eye strain if used for a long time. Im typing this from a P-II-350 Mhz... with a aincient NVidia 32MB TNT graphics card on a el-cheapo monitor running 1024x768 @ 75Hz...

 

This is a PC that was being thrown away ... so it seems strange you can only get 60Hz ?

 

You will need to download and install the driver from the NVIDIA web site... to exploit the graphics card...

 

You can't do much about the mobo but I don't see why it won't work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not a question of 'looks', it's a question of how your eyes feel about looking at it :). People's sensitivity to refresh rates varies, I'm extremely sensitive (I can tell the refresh rate of a monitor, below 85Hz, just by looking at it, and I get a headache using 60Hz for more than five minutes) but everyone's sensitive to some degree. Ever find you get a headache and feel a little tired if you look at your screen for a long period? Refresh rate has a lot to do with that. You really, really, really want it to be 85Hz at a minimum.

 

BTW, 1152x864 on a 17" screen is mostly pointless. For any CRT monitor you can in fact work out the absolute maximum number of pixels it can properly render; just find out the dot pitch and divide it into the width of the monitor in inches. The result will be less than 1152, which means your monitor can't actually display all the 1152 pixels you're telling it to. This means everything will look just a little bit fuzzy. Use 1024x768 and everything will be a lot crisper. Optimum resolutions for most monitors are 800x600 at 15", 1024x768 at 17", 1152x864 or so at 19" (it's a bit of an in-between size, is 19") and 1600x1200 at 21".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...